Please read my post again I think you missed the point. Alow me to clarify for you - No I do not think the general statement the Audi and Subaru are better than Mitsubishi is a valid statement. But as we are dealing here only with the Outlander that does not have the same drive system as any of the Dakar Mitsubishis or any of the other Mitsu 4x4 offerings or awd offerings and the Subaru and Audi do a comment to compare these other vehicles technically superior "sold in the showroom" mechanicals is a valid one. If we were comparing the Evo AWD system I would say absolutley they are a mechanical equal, even the Endeavour I would accept a comparison as they use a very similar centre differential and or viscose coupling system as one or other. So I hope I have helped you understand my view. But if you wish to use winnings as a criteria you must than also consider Audi's 24 hr 3 Lemans wins, and the Audi European Sedan domination for over 10 years and so on. These are AWD winnings not 4x4 dirt track winnings. AWD is all I am discussing I hope you appreciate the difference.And a big difference is all the drive systems Audi uses in these wins are the same as the ones you buy in the Q7, A8, A6 and so on. I like the Mitsu. Its a cute little thing - I just will hold my final judgement on it until I have travelled and survived a couple of thousand km on snow and ice as I have the past 176,000 km of winter in my Audi CQ - as a car fan you may wish to visit - 20v.org -if you don't know the car.

>> Please read my post again I think you missed the point. Alow me to clarify for you - No I do not think the general statement the Audi and Subaru are better than Mitsubishi is a valid statement.

Well, in your post you've said "...Audi and one of the Acura's$$$ have true awd, but the Mitsu was the best compromise". So you were saying that the Audi is a &#147;true&#148; thing but the Mitsu is the &#147;compromise&#148;. I am glad though now you are offering your clarification, that you do not think that Audi is better than Mitsubishi. I surely understand: it would be hard to think so, considering that the "compromised" Mitsubishi beats the Audi Quattro to the punch in a direct competition. .

>> the Outlander that does not have the same drive system as any of the Dakar Mitsubishis a big difference is all the drive systems Audi uses in these wins are the same as the ones you buy in the Q7, A8, A6

I&#146;ve never said that the Outlander uses &#147;the same drive system&#148;, but you are saying that the Audi you drive has the same AWD as this Lemans million dollar racing car Audi R10? You kidding, right???.

>> if you wish to use winnings as a criteria you must than also consider Audi's 24 hr 3 Lemans wins, and the Audi European Sedan domination for over 10 years and so on.

Sure, Audi builds great cars, and it has some good race achievements within the scale of insignificant regional European races, where Japanese and American cars are rare participants, and were AWD is not banned. The FIA Super Touring bans AWD, and Formula1 bans AWD, but some Lemans race allows it.

In 1995 Audi entered its A4 w/ AWD Quattro in Super Touring race (TOCA) for BTCC and dominated the races (as you&#146;ve said). This raised many complaints from other teams fielding front-wheel-drive cars. All season Audi won repeatedly throughout most of the series, with rear-wheel-drive BMW finishing in a close second continuously. But the FIA realized that an AWD car in a field of Front Wheel Drive cars was an unfair advantage so they outright banned AWD. Audi responded to the ban in 1998 with a Front Wheel Drive A4 ... and it sucked compared to other FWDs pretty much proving that AWD gave them an advantage.

Otherwise, in a fair fight the quality of AWD system is a smaller factor in a race like Lemans, since it&#146;s going on this dedicated perfectly build racing track. The quality of AWD is a much bigger factor in a legendary 2-week Dakar rally in a desert where the "compromised" Mitsubishi dominates 7 years in a row. And, by the way, a German team did win the Dakar rally in 2001. But they did not pick one of German-build Audi/Tuareg/MB/BMWs. Germans won the Dakar rally on a "compromised" Mitsubishi!

BMW was a big moaner about being whooped by Audi and as the largest team brought sway to have them ejected - even though they had a lame "x" system in their 3 series sedans at the time. It adds so much weight though it just couldn't compete. The compromise is only the Outlander 35% system nothing else. Yes the race Audi's do use precisely the same "technology" as one buys in the street cars (albeit with more exotic metals as the stresses are less in the A8 and A6's) just as some of the Mitsu products use the same "technology" as the Dakkar vehicles in other units than the Outlander, also with less exotic materials. The Endeavour I believe has a sequential or distributed torque system that would be close to the race units and close to those of Subaru and Audi - I cannot find any web site that outlines the Mitsubishi engineering specs, but once again this is not what is used in the Outlander and that is my point. The Outlander's awd is a compromise system as compared to a 100% electronically or mechanically distributed system that is standard in all Subaru and most Audi products. A German equivalent to the Outlander system would be the 2002 - 4 Volkswagen 4 and the early Mercedes 4 Motion. This is an interesting discussion of interpretive values isn't it?

Some people still think (not suggesting you) that a 4x4 is an awd and vis versa. Even some manufacturers try to sell based on the use of both phrases bringing about more confusion in the market place - not unlike my all time favourite "All Season Tires". The same people who think of their 4x4 in 4 lock as an awd rocket also think their all season tires on their 4x4 will rewrite the laws of physics. They are usually the first in the ditch up side down .

I wonder why the Outlander team went to the low percentage split - is it for the mom shopping in the snow covered parking lot? I understand the small saving possible in fuel usage with the selector switch and that's fine but not the low % transfer even when in full lock.I have tried to find some technical literature on their systems but to no avail. There is nothing in the owners book either. If you have any links that you know of I would appreciate them. Still waiting for some snow to test..

domo arigatto (pardon the spelling?!) Now I really cant wait to get on the interior back roads and try to figure out what our friend was saying. I did appear very stable and controlled with very little wheel adjustment didn't it? I wonder if I am misunderstanding the split ? The older Montero system was similar to this and allowed for the split to be 33% front and 67% rear so I am wondering now if those few who have written about the Outlander are not mistaken about the split being the reverse as that stated for Montero? The rate of under steer, with a 70 front 30 rear would increase and has been my underlying reason for questioning the Mitsu O awd.

It appears that Mitsubishi has addressed the problem of the rear seats in the 2007 edition. However may I ask someone in this forum in what models (First/second row fully-flat seating function) this improvement has been made? XLS, LS, or ES?

The ones I have seen have the same seat config as the '07. The only seat that is fold flat in them is the third row. I checked the web site and there the only mention to is of a third row fold flat so .. ??

Maybe a specific to California as must be the CVT 2.4 as I can find no reference to that model here either - but it would definitely be a nice improvment ot have the fold flat second row as I can't get my skis in the back and have to buy the rack and load my box on the roof again .

The 2nd row does NOT fold flat, it tumbles forward into the foot-well area. It does this in a 60/40 split. You should be able to fit skis when one part of the 2nd row is folded forward.The 2.4l w/ CVT is available as of the 2008 model year.

What is the maximum weight that the outlander can support on the roof (e.g. roof box)? I expect to visit &#147;death horse&#148; in Alaska and I would like to know this weight. They said that the outlander roof has been made from aluminum.

To complement last year's standard V6 engine, a new four-cylinder engine debuts for the 2008 Mitsubishi Outlander. It's offered on the base ES trim level only and comes standard with a continuously variable transmission (CVT). Other changes include the discontinuation of the sliding second-row rear seat feature on ES and LS trims (it's still on the XLS).

Could someone elaborate further in the understanding of &#147;Other changes include the discontinuation of the sliding second-row rear seat feature on ES and LS trims&#148;? Will this mean that the second-row rear seats will fold flat into the vehicle floor or something else?

I may be the only person on the planet that doesn't want the extra weight in the [non-permissible content removed] end of the vehicle. Has anyone removed theirs? I can'[t see any down side on a quick viewing other than having to buy the cover and filler from the dealer.

According to the 2008 Mitsubishi Outlander brochure, the first row seats are supposedly able to fold flat. Now, I was able to fold flat/tumble the 2nd row seats and all I can figure out with 1st row is how to recline it. 2nd row seats have straps that when you pull, the seats fold/tumble. How do you fold flat the 1st row? Is it even possible or is this a print mistake in the brochure? Any help would be greatly appreciated. This would make Outlander even more useful as it would allow me to transport very long items.

So again, maybe people don't know the difference between fold flat seats and reclining a seat or maybe it's some another omitted from US market feature or maybe it's not that easy to fold it flat and actually requires some effort???

Does someone have specific instructions for taking out the second row seats in order to have a better camping experience in the vehicle? The rear just isn't long enough with the seats folded up. I have searched this thread and haven't seen the question addressed. Thank you.